memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha talk:What Memory Alpha is not
Wikipedia :Memory Alpha is not Wikipedia. Our policies state that Memory Alpha is intended to present information from Star Trek, and is not to present an excess of "real world" information. Related to this, articles at Memory Alpha should be named as per their use in the Star Trek universe, and not be named in the same manner as Wikipedia. Methinks that we should note that Memory Alpha is not Wikipedia. Ergo, we shouldn't always name our articles identically to their articles (especially when they're referred to in-canon under a different name). This also covers the issue of too much "real world" information, when a Wikipedia link would better serve the purpose. I don't want to outright add this myself without the agreement of anyone else but... well... me, so I figured that I'd raise the issue here first. -- Sulfur 17:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Forum:List of Star Trek actors who have appeared nude in films or print What do you think about having this as a list on this wiki? --Babaganoosh 16:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :I don't think it is necessary or relevant. Appearances as such are for the most part (with some small exceptions) not in Star Trek, and there is no reason for us to make articles and lists devoted to things not related to Trek canon or production. An article like this would probably also be an invitation for vandalism. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ::Not necessary -- although an in-startrek one might be useful. - Llyfr 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :::I think the only time one has performed fully nude (though not visible on screen) was Patrick Stewart in . All other 'nude' scenes were most likely performed with concealing cloths. - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 16:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ::True, but I would also include 'partial nudes' in this list. - Llyfr 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :Well, there was T'Pol, and there was that art model, but that is about all I recall. If we start including "partially nude", we are going to get into a serious problem of people disagreeing over what counts as "partially nude" and what does not. We could see some people trying to list all the Dabo girls, for example. Also, as I said originally, this would be a magnet for vandals, and I feel would not do that much, just like attempts at making a list of times Sisko lost command. This just won't benefit Memory Alpha enough to be worth the trouble in my mind. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ::::I think Babaganoosh was asking about a list of Star Trek actors who have appeared nude in any film or show, not just on Star Trek. If that is the case, then you have Marina Sirtis (in her three earliest films, The Wicked Lady, Blind Date, and Death Wish III), Denise Crosby (in Playboy and in a few films, as well as Red Shoe Diaries, I believe), Jolene Blalock (Diamond Hunters, although you can't see much; she also did a few photo shoots where she's not nude but her attire doesn't leave much to the imagination), Terry Farrell (there are one or two nude spreads of her out there), and Chase Masterson (Digital Man, among others). As for an individual list on Memory Alpha, though... no. It'll never happen, I assure you. ;) --From Andoria with Love 17:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ::Wouldn't mind a catalogue of dabo girls. - Llyfr 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :We have one, at Dabo girls. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC) :::::Shran, please don't make it easy and list actual nude appearances here. The discussion is about whether a page on this topic would be relevant.--Tim Thomason 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC) ::::It's not relevant. I said that. But that doesn't mean I can't answer the man's question. Oh, btw, I forgot Ashley Judd, too. She appeared nude in a few things. Norma Jean & Marilyn comes to mind. :D --From Andoria with Love 02:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC) ::::::Shouldn't this be moved to MA:TF? - Patricknoddy Talk 22:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC) :::::Not really. Ten Forward is for discussing policies and MA operations. Actually, since this is discussing the addition of something to the site, maybe it does belong at TF more than at the reference desk. Technically speaking, though, this forum shouldn't exist at all. --From Andoria with Love 07:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC) ::::::: This is certainly a discussion for "what MA is not..." --Alan 05:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Websites I'd like to expand #3 in what an article is not to: :Advertising for websites. If your personal site focuses on the same subject as an article, then it is acceptable to add the site to a list of external links in that article. However, use your judgment and make sure that the context is appropriate – spamming is not tolerated. In addition, pages on unofficial web sites are too subjective... Memory Alpha is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Our focus is on what we see on TV, not what websites we like to hang out at.' As it stands, we have at least two articles on unofficial websites. Admittedly, these webpages both provide useful information, news, and interviews, but where do we draw the line on what webpages are acceptable, and which are not? How about the webpage creators? I know that at one point, we had an article on the main creator of one of them. That page was, fairly quickly, PfD'd and dealt with, but what's stopping people from adding more? -- Sulfur 12:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC) :Stealing Alan's comment and turning it into a policy... I like it! But don't tell Alan, 'cause then, you'll know, he'll want credit and all that. --From Andoria with Love 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC) :Oh, and I agree with the policy. Have at it! ;) --From Andoria with Love 03:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Nitpickers guide I added a section that I feel is long coming about MA not being a nitpickers guide. I hope no one objects to my boldness, but this has been an agreed upon practice over a year ago, an it feels silly constantly citing the forum thread where this was agreed by the community. About time it was actually stated in the policies, I say. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC) :Too ambiguous; the text doesn't define what a nitpick is. It shouldn't have been added as policy without a draft to consider. Production errors and continuity problems should have a place on episode pages and background notes as this has become just as much of a realworld encyclopedia about the episodes and production as an encyclopedia of the fictional universe. --Bp 23:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC) ::Continuity errors, maybe; we're supposed to point those out anyway (although that should normally be done on an in-universe page regarding whatever subject involves the error). Production errors, however, are typically nitpicks in themselves and have been removed in the past. Although bringing this up for discussion first to "fine-tune" it, as it were, probably would have helped, I don't think it's hurting anything to add it prior to discussion in this case since it was an "unofficial" policy we've been following for quite some time. Now, it's official. As Cobra said, it's been a long time coming – the discussion regarding it was started over a year ago! I agree, though, we probably should specify what "nitpicks" cover. --From Andoria with Love 03:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC) :::Captain Mike makes a good point at Talk:The_Man_Trap (episode)#Nitpicks: ::::Things which seem to be exceptions to a rule can be noted, i believe (i.e. ''"this was the only episode this effect/premise was used/not used.") or notes about the production (as i've said before, "The set was reused from another planet set/another movie set.." etc.", "The costume lacked the patches used in later appearances..", etc) -- it becomes a nitpick when the writer attempt to correlate it to some problem they have with the note (i.e. "How are we supposed to believe these two aliens have the same wall decorations?", "The costumes are all wrong because they don't correspond to Navy rank systems..", etc..). A production note tells you that something happened or appeared a certain way, but a nitpick implies that there is a problem with it doing so. Keep in mind that specific observances could be moved to the separate article, and should be removed from the "background notes" of the episode page -- for example, if a phaser beam is blue instead of red, maybe it goes on phasers' page(s?) -- Captain M.K.B. 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC) :::Mike explains what a nitpick is, and what we are trying to avoid. The current "policy" basically just says there is this thing we don't want that is hard to define. There are errors that are interesting and important and need to be included without criticism. --Bp 04:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ::That seems to be a requirement for nitpicking, that is, criticizing it. In that sense, the policy already covers this. But I believe the consensus was to not include these errors at all. If we want the policy to specifically say pointing out errors is allowed, but criticizing them is not, we would need to discuss it further and see if everyone would agree to that. So, let's see what people say. --From Andoria with Love 04:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :::We must include production errors such as inconsistencies. How many moons does Bajor have? How many decks does the Enterprise-E have? What about the characters with different ranks in different episodes? What about the names of species, or universe anachronisms spoken in dialogue? What about the color of Klingon blood? An error that is on screen is non-trivial enough to be included, as any other "important" fact is included if it is on screen. --Bp 04:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) :::: The problem is, is that at times, nitpicks tend to be written by the ignorant or the pompous. Obviously the Klingon blood thing was done for a reason, to keep the film PG-13, and that should be noted as a production decision, I don't think it needs to be explained or justified in canon as some weird mutation or mistake. I guess, above all, we whatever we do, it should sound encyclopedic. --Alan del Beccio 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ::So shall we reword the nitpick policy to say that criticizing & evaluating production errors are not allowed and that the errors should be listed and nothing else? --From Andoria with Love 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :::::I'm still opposed to that. I don't think we should become a catalog of errors. I do think that forum discussion we had expressed opposition to this. I also think that a large percentage of "errors" people put up turn out not even to be errors at all. Things like the Klingon blood aren't errors, they are intentional production decisions, we know why they did it (the PG-13 stuff). Things like pink slippers or communicators falling open, we don't. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC) :::A nitpick needs to be defined if we are going to have a policy that allows anyone to delete something they consider a nitpick. We can't have a policy that says there is this thing that we don't want, you decide what it is, delete it without procedure and cite MA:NOT. There has to be some guidance for us and for future editors that were not involved in any of these discussions. :::Now, about what the definition should be: I would point out that this is an encyclopedia of a fictional universe. The only evidence for the "facts" we catalogue are in canon. If there is an error that leads to a contradiction of these facts it should be noted. If we know why it happened it makes a good background note. This is important and interesting information. I'm not saying we have to explain it in-universe. I also think it should stay encyclopedic tone, that is why I suggested Mike definition, because it defined a nitpick by the way it is presented, not simply an error for which there is no universal standard of "trivial". This whole site is trivial. What even-more-trivial information are we excluding? Data using contractions after we are specifically told he can't, is fine in a background note. Klingon blood that was changed for ratings, is a good background note. I don't see any problems as long as it is presented in a nuetral, encyclopedic way. Bajoran moon count, decks of the enterprise, great BG notes. We don't have to explain them in-universe but they shouldnt be deleted either. Bascially, I want to clear up a policy that is extremely vague about what is allowed to be quick deleted with simply "WP:NOT". --Bp 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC) ::::::My take on it is the following: ::::::* Any note questioning story logic or character's stances on an issue is a nitpick. (eg. Janeway says X, but her actions in Y and Z seem to contradict this.) The problem with these is they ignore the fact that characters don't always act rationally, or may be hypocritical. Likewise, there may be factors at play that prohibit our heroes from doing what you think they should do. It IS acceptable to neutrally note an omission, preferably with explanations from a citeable production source, or an explanation that involves minimal speculation. Pretty much, this fits Mike's def: the first is criticism and thus a nitpick, the latter is not. ::::::* A production note is not a nitpick if it is neutrally worded. Things like re-used sets/props, costume/rank mismatches should always be allowed. However, I think we should remove any "notes" that describe ridiculously trivial/banal production occurrences. Like the following gems I removed from : ::::::**A crewmember in a corridor appears to be chewing gum. ::::::**After Kirk confronts Dr. Jones in sickbay, watch Diana Muldaur trying to keep from laughing by biting her lip. ::::::**In this episode and "The Empath", Leonard Nimoy has some serious nasal congestion. ::::::They may not be nitpicks, but they're stupid and unencyclopedic. ::::::In short, I think we should adopt Mike's def, plus note that we don't list every triviality.– Cleanse 05:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) :::::::I think an important point mentioned above is the fact that we, first and foremost, do not want tons of nitpicks to be dumped to some section of an episode page. If a good way could be found to add an individual bit of information (neutrally worded) to some "content" article - why not. If we'd just end up with more unsorted lists of nitpick-y information, filled with personal speculation and stupid assumptions - no, definitely no. -- Cid Highwind 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC) :::Memory Alpha:Nitpick, Memory Alpha talk:Nitpick. --Bp 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia again There seems to be a recent trend in copying content from Wikipedia over to Memory Alpha, going so far as replacing existing articles with ones from Wikipedia. Take a look at Pon farr, Kruge, and others. At first I did not know why, but there is a pattern, as made apparent by The Adventures of Captain Proton and its edit summary, "evacuate matter from the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Adventures_of_Captain_Proton, which has been deleted". All of these pages have in common being deleted from Wikipedia, or AfD notices that make it obvious deletion is coming in the near future. This is being done by multiple anons now. What I think is happening is that people are treating Memory Alpha as some sort of recycle bin for deleted Wikipedia content, which of course we are not (particularly when we have our own content already). I propose an addition to this page about Memory Alpha not being Wikipedia's recycle bin. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC) :Would that actually help, or just be more text on a guideline page to read? I guess it's the latter, so I'm hesitant to adding that. -- Cid Highwind 01:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Essays We're currently having a discussion about articles that "analyze" and "create" instead of just present available information with proper citation here. The term "essay" has been coined for such articles - I think "No essays" would make a good addition to this list. -- Cid Highwind 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC) :I think so too. It would stop a lot of heartburn from innocent people writing these articles since such articles are usually subject to heavy criticism (which I guess they should be). A firm policy would eliminiate this kind of thing from ever happening again. -FC 14:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC) ::I'm not sure. I think analysis is a key element of an encyclopedia, and MA's backlash against it has been a serious flaw, not something we should enshrine in policy. --- Jaz 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ::For example, I don't think it would be out of line to have articles like Protrayel of Women in Star Trek or Cinematographic Style of Star Trek provided they were properly cited and used academic sources (ie no original research). --- Jaz 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :There are parts of my failed "military reference" article which I think can still be on this site. For instance, there should be nothing wrong with a simple list of episodes and films where the military has been referenced. I was disappointed with some of the attitudes about the military reference article, in particular how some long standing users starting "breaking their own rules when they became inconvenient" with one person in particular degenerating into some small scale personal attacks. But then, that's exactly why we should outline what kind of essay articles can't be on this site...to prevent that from happening again. -FC 17:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC) If this is supposed to stay a mature discussion, it might be best to not "fuel the fire" any more than necessary. Also, I'm taking the liberty to remove links from both of your responses (two suggested essay article from Jaz, the quoted text linking to the episode article for in FC's case). Anyway, on topic again, I'm not sure if the initial suggestion has been understood by everyone. This is about articles that do not just present readily available information, but articles that analyze, draw connections, basically "make up" new facts. And, to be honest, I haven't seen a single encyclopedia that does that. -- Cid Highwind 17:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :I didn't mention any names for exactly the reason you stated (fueling the fire). My whole point is that unpleasant situations like the one I just went through can be avoided by having a concrete policy. I think we should go ahead and make one. And I love that line from ! I use it all the time in the real world; it's a classic! -FC 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :::You don't need to name names to fuel the fire, particularly if you are going to mischaracterize (again) the situation. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :That situation is closed; I have no wish to reopen it. I am just saying that I am completely in support of a policy here. It will help prevent similar situations from arising and make deletion of improper articles a lot easier. -FC 17:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :::If the situation is closed, then don't reopen it by kicking the bees nest. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Which is a really great comment - now, everyone stop kicking the poor bees now, before this discussion is run into the ground completely. And I hope it's clear what "everyone" means, right? -- Cid Highwind 18:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :Fine by me (Buzzzzz) :-) I do think we should now focus on writing the actual policy "Memory Alpha is not a place for independent essays" or something like that. And with that, I am going to listen to my favorite song: "Just walk away Renee..." and walk away. -FC 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ::How about Memory Alpha is not a forum for original research? This would still enable discussion in areas where legitimate academic papers have been published (ie, Portrayal of Women in Star Trek). --- Jaz 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I think it's a wholly different question whether we want to have these type of articles. As I see it, we're still, first and foremost, an in-universe encyclopedia for the "canon" (more or less) Star Trek universe. After that, we are (or are becoming) a real-world encyclopedia for the production part of that "canon" Trek (which is, of course, not a bad thing). Trying to also become the place where completely independent research on the "Star Trek" phenomenon is being listed, on top of what we do first and second, would be something I'd oppose. In other words, I see a fundamental difference between the article type we were originally talking about ("original research" to find out existing real-world influence on some specific part of Trek "canon", as for example military structures) and the article type that is now being dragged into this discussion, which really hasn't been up for discussion before. Can we please concentrate on the one type, and save discussion about whether we even want the other for a different time and place? -- Cid Highwind 11:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :To help clear up my own confusion here, is Shakespeare and Star Trek an appropriate article for this site? It was brought up several times during the discussions about military references but wasn't removed or deleted after the military discussion came to an end. This would help clear up the type of article we are discussing here. -FC 11:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :In addition, would this be allowed (as a list) where this clearly wouldn't be since it draws original conclusions about influences on the show. This is the area I'm getting hung up on. -FC 11:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Well, my personal opinion is that the "references" parts of both articles could very well stay (how and where would obviously need to be discussed as/if the surrounding article gets removed) - it's just the "essay" part that I don't think has a place here. In the case of the Shakespeare article, I believe that sections #1/#4 need to be removed/outsourced (it seems as if #1 even is based on an existing off-site essay already!), while #2 could stay as a simple list article (a reference to the off-site essay could be added here, then), and #3 could be reworked into it's own article about the Pocket Books book. -- Cid Highwind 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :::: Indeed. Also, I realize that this is incredibly simplistic question to ask, but why again is it felt we need essays, at all, in an encyclopedia? Growing up reading my parent's hardbound "Funk and Wagnells", I recall finding nothing but page after page of biographies and histories of one specific topic or person, while completely void of essays. Why is (should) MA (be) any different? I'm not finding 'between the lines' anything suggesting "essays" in our goal: "a collaborative project to create the most definitive, accurate, and accessible encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek." Regarding the military "list" of stuff, so much of that can (and already is) be parred down into the specific articles they refer to, like the Marine Corps page, and so forth. In fact, I could even envision the miliary analogies or references tied into Starfleet on the "Starfleet" page in some section about its' function. What's wrong with spreading out information to the articles that could use it, instead of builting one super essay article off of the shoulders of lesser articles that could use the attention in the first place? --Alan 12:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC) :::::I haven't been following the earlier discussions, but just for the record, I am firmly in the "no essays" camp. MA is primarily an in-universe encyclopedia of the Star Trek universe. Secondly, there is a focus on production and history of the show. But even there, those pages are only created if they have some direct relation to something in the 'in-universe' encyclopedia. I don't think essays or studies on various subjects as they relate to Star Trek is something that has a place on MA. It's like using the encyclopedia to study something, and then putting the results back into the encyclopedia. A page like Shakespeare and Star Trek should not belong on MA, IMO. The lists are nice, but could easily be combined with William Shakespeare. So, in very short: essays - no, thematic lists - only if it fits on some kind of page that is more than just that list. For example, there is a page called Militaries, which could be home to the 'military themes' with some more explanations (but no original research). My 2 cents. -- — Harry usr tlk 13:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC) ::::::The founder hath spoken. So let it be written. So let it be done. :) For the record, I, too, am against "essay"-type articles in an encyclopedia for the exact reasons pointed out by Harry, Alan and others above. Look in an encyclopedia and you will find biographies and histories, not analyses and essays. That's because they're encyclopedias... and MA is no different. And I'm just sound like a broken record, so I shall end, now. :P --From Andoria with Love 06:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC) :::: You owe me a penny and a half. --Alan 06:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) :I brought up our discussion here on Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Shakespeare and Star Trek. I think we should formally add that "Memory Alpha is not a collection of essays" to this page and state that subjective essays which draw conclusion about Star Trek which have not been mentioned in canon are inappropriate for this site. If people agree, I'll add it in. -FC 15:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)